"..he's got another thing coming."

I am curious about what you think this means?

It used to be "he's got another think coming", meaning "he'll have to think again." It's along the lines of "he's had a thought, now there will be another thought coming."

But it's been mutated by people who never heard the original properly and ended up misquoting it. It's like people who say "to all intensive purposes" when the original, meaningful saying is "to all intents and purposes."

It has become an idiom, an atomic phrase, not to be understood by trying to take it apart and examining the components. This is a common occurrence in linguistics.

Annoys the hell outta me.

In the simplest case, the thing referred to is 'a think', and they're entirely equivalent :)

I'd argue that this is more of an Eggcorn[1] than a malapropism, unlike your second example.

"The proof is in the pudding", or the classic "Could care less"[2] are the two worst offenders I can think of immediately.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw

You got me curious. I looked it up. Definitely not what I thought. I'm not a native English speaker though, so that's my excuse :)

this has come to mean "they should think again"

The relevant section is on page 8, where it states

  "...the employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee,
   appropriate personal protective equipment such as, but not limited to,
   condoms, gloves for cleaning, and, if contact of the eyes with OPIM-STI is
   reasonably anticipated, eye protection."

The phrase "OPIM-STI" is an acronym for "other potentially infectious materials - sexually transmitted infection" which is itself a shorthand for

  "...bodily fluids and other substances that may contain and transmit sexually
   transmitted pathogens. These fluids include, but are not limited to, pre-ejaculate,
   ejaculate, semen, vaginal secretions, fecal matter and rectal secretions, secretions
   from wounds or sores that are potentially infected with sexually transmitted pathogens,
   and any other bodily fluid when visibly contaminated with blood or all bodily fluids in
   situations where it is difficult or impossible to differentiate between bodily fluids."

Saying "one of the answers" is a very modest way of referring to your own answer ;)

Oh, neat - I wrote the top answer there (over two years ago apparently!)

I stand by the modelling, although it's embarrassing to read my two year old code.

I found that model somewhat overkill. I would have cut some corners there: assume that the oldest person alive is 110 or older (reasonable, given a world population in the billions and the data we have) and compute his (more likely her) hazard rate from the curve you fitted.

For hazard rates at old age, taking life expectancy equal to 0.5/hazard rate isn't an extremely bad approximation (I have no education in actuarial science and gave that little thought; corrections welcome), so one gets:

   age   h(age)  life expectancy
   109   0.473   1.058
   110   0.503   0.993
   111   0.536   0.933
   112   0.570   0.876
   113   0.607   0.824
   114   0.645   0.775
   115   0.685   0.730
   116   0.728   0.687

Again, we get in the range of that 2/3-ish.

Reminds me of the guy who answered some question about Python how to put two strings together, and then 3 years later commented 'Oh look here I am asking the same question I answered' lol